Why do atheists only seem to go after the Judeao-Christian religion?

[Shrooms00087]

If you try and attack a Buddhist with science they would just say "yeah that doesn't contradict my thought".

 

[paranoid android]

I don't know why many people who are right wing in America and Canada too think that the left wing (a all encompassing term for anything left of center) pick on the Christians while letting Islam off the hook. It's just that we draw from our experiences and i grew up in a predominately Irish Catholic area and also saw the very nasty things the good old church had done everything from supporting Fascism to sexually assaulting god knows how many boys. I remember seeing the scandals about the church here everyday on the news and that atrocity is what helped break their influence on the island. So needless to say i have no love for them.

As for Islam i have only read abit of the Quran ages ago because my aunt had a copy of it and i was staying at her place for abit. I have had many Muslim friends but in reality they are about as Muslim as i am Catholic. My ex was Iraqi and a Muslim by birth and she never even read a verse from the Quran. She disliked the idea of religious fanatics as much as i do. Many of my friends have been Muslim by birth as well including the Persian chick i have known for ages and was a Heroin addict and she also liked her E's and yeah everything else.. Most of them are just ordinary people who are born into Islam just like i was born into Catholicism. All religions when taken too seriously can be dangerous but i do dislike some more then others.

So yeah if i rag on Christianity more then other religions it's because i know the most about that religion. I grew up in a era when the schools here finally became non sectarian and the child abuse scandals more or less brought the church to it's knees.

 

[swilow]

I agree and I would even go as far as saying atheism is a religion itself. To me it's like a spectrum... On one side you have hardcore atheists saying that without a doubt there is no god, and on the other you have the religious fundamentalists saying that without a doubt there is. The thing is neither side can prove their stance, and that's why at least personally agnosticism makes the most sense to me. To me there's so much we don't know that I think it's silly to deny that any sort of higher power exists.

Look, I get what you are saying here, but your statement features what has become a "common" line of argument against atheism which I think is erroneous. The burden of proof in most instances of debate and rhetoric lies with those that make positive claims. Hence, it is not unreasonable for believers in god to be asked to provide evidence to substantiate their claims, but those who do not believe such a thing have nothing to prove; they are not making an assertion.

Using Russel's Teapot as an example, a non-believer does not have to prove that an orbiting teapot does not exists. Those who claim it does exist are the ones who need to provide proof to back up their assertion.

Wouldn't that be a type of agnosticism tho?

Well, sort of, but agnosticism has purely religious overtones in our culture. We are talking about people who are saying they do not know the answer to a question of physics/science.

If you try and attack a Buddhist with science they would just say "yeah that doesn't contradict my thought".

Can you expand on that at all? Its an interesting statement and, I feel, somewhat in line with my own view of Buddhism.

Peace

 

[bit_pattern]

Atheists are pretty visceral towards Islam too.

I've never heard of atheists going after Buddhism for instance.

Well for starters Buddhism doesn't have a god and atheism rejects the belief in gods - not religion. You could argue that Buddhism is a form of atheism so there is nothing for atheists to "go after".

On one side you have hardcore atheists saying that without a doubt there is no god,

Atheists don't say that - they say that there is no evidence of god, a subtle but important distinction I would have thought.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Can you expand on that at all? Its an interesting statement and, I feel, somewhat in line with my own view of Buddhism.

Peace

A scientist once asked the Llama if evolution was a problematic theory for the doctrines of his religion and I believe he said (something to the affect of) "No, they are congruent"

 

[Aurelia]

Because it's the religion that was forced upon them and bored them at school. Hence, any alternative is better. Plus, they are simple-minded.

I agree with this completely. It was jammed down my throat all during my childhood, and now I can't stand Christians because they are hypocrites and they STILL try to force their ideas onto you. Atheist don't run around trying to make people listen. And you see all these little gangbangers with crucifixes on. Why? Because no matter what they do, they "are forgiven". Makes me sick.

But there's no better way to start a fight than talking religion or politics in public. I'm sorry I lost my temper. That's all I'll say.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Atheists are pretty visceral towards Islam too.



Well for starters Buddhism doesn't have a god and atheism rejects the belief in gods - not religion. You could argue that Buddhism is a form of atheism so there is nothing for atheists to "go after".

Well maybe Buddhism was a bad example but my point was I personally never heard an atheist attack anything besides Christianity. Maybe just because it's so big in the US I guess.

Atheists don't say that - they say that there is no evidence of god, a subtle but important distinction I would have thought.

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Seems pretty clear cut to me. If the person is just saying they don't know if there's a god or not that would make them agnostic.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Atheist don't run around trying to make people listen.

What??? Yeah they do. In my experience a lot of atheists behave in the same dogmatic way as the people they disagree with.

 

[swilow]

^And a lot don't. Generalisations don't help, unless they are about Christians.

 

[bit_pattern]

Seems pretty clear cut to me. If the person is just saying they don't know if there's a god or not that would make them agnostic.

There's a difference between saying "there is no evidence of God" and saying "I don't know if there is a God" - for example, I can say there is no evidence for flogistan or Luminiferous aether but that doesn't mean I am agnostic as to whether they exist or not. Any atheist who is forming their opinion based on the principles of scientific positivism would not say that anything can be proved with 100% certainty, only that the vast weight of evidence is against the idea that there is a God. As i said, the distinction is subtle but it is important too.

 

[rickolasnice]

Well maybe Buddhism was a bad example but my point was I personally never heard an atheist attack anything besides Christianity. Maybe just because it's so big in the US I guess.



athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Seems pretty clear cut to me. If the person is just saying they don't know if there's a god or not that would make them agnostic.

Believing there is no God is not the same as knowing there is no god.

 

[Teabag Johnny]

What??? Yeah they do. In my experience a lot of atheists behave in the same dogmatic way as the people they disagree with.

Yeah, you do have some atheist trying to kill Christmas and change the Pledge of Allegiance.

Come on! Kill Christmas! Really? Everyone loves Christmas & sharing gifts expect you Change the Pledge of Allegiance!? Really!? Have you even fought & sacrificed your life for our home & our freedom?

Kind of reminds me of that guy winning a law suit because the night club he went to has "Ladies Night." That is free drinks for women. His argument was that the business offer was sexist & it discriminated against men. He won the law suit and the club no longer has "Ladies Night." Yeah, only 99% of the population approve of the generous offer, so now the club can no longer have it.

You bunch of Party Poopers :D

 

[socko]

In a nutshell, my problem with the Christianity/Islam/Judaism is that they are dogmatic and require blind faith in "bible god."With those religions, there is a set of required beliefs. With Buddhism, on the other hand, it's possible to be an atheist and a Buddhist. Depending on the flavor, Buddhism tends to be non-dogmatic and invites questions. There aren't really any required beliefs in supernatural entities.

Another reason for the more visceral disgust with Christianity is because of childhood experiences with Christianity being forced down one's throat and bad experiences with Bible thumpers and other people who have used that religion as a weapon, a very common occurrence in America. It's backlash.

Easy target maybe? I've never heard of atheists going after Buddhism for instance. A lot if not most atheists to me at least actually just seem anti-christian. Thoughts?

 

[RichardMooner]

I think I like you.

Though I've never been keen on the Bible for many reasons. I sense there is so much that is corrupt there and always knew the Bible wasn't created for pure purposes and doesn't do much to bring us closer to God. And this quote from one of the links in my Lucifer thread made me even more pissed than I already was.


"The Jesus Project was a great success, in that it taught so many to connect with God once again, and it gave hope and joy where there had been only despair.

The legend of the Radiant One lived on and continued to grow for 300 years, carrying the Truth that God is Love. Although there were detractors, and Paul, who had appointed himself as an Apostle took it upon himself to redefine the mission to create what he decided was a new religion, his teachings did not take hold in a far-reaching way until Constantine decided for his own reasons to create the Bible.

I was on that committee, as a dark advisor to the Emperor. I watched as they sliced and mangled the writings of those who had truly loved Jesus, and who had written accurately of his life and work. Large tracts, like the writings of Mary Magdalene and Thomas, were declared false, illegitimate, while many of the copious writings of Paul were adopted wholesale.

It was all I could do to convince the committee that the beautiful passages describing tenderness, healing and joy among the community of followers were harmless, meaningless in the long run, and helpful in the context of the story they had constructed to try to create a picture of a weak and ineffectual leader.

It was an effective effort on their part, given that they wished to provide a worldly contrast between their powerful, aspiring Emperor and the spiritual leader who was disconnected from worldly pursuits. Jesus was intended to be used as a palliative for the people, in mild contrast to the growing power of the throne."

Wait, I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Haha. The quote that you put under your original statement is a quote written by another that pisses you off, or it is a quote written by you and I have missed something? My apologies, I'm running a bit slow today.

As for the writings of Paul, I personally discredit him on a lot of areas, and in others, I really like him. If it was not for 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and the book of Enoch (which holds the only true contradiction I have ever found in the Bible, although it was removed by the Council of Laodicea.), I would probably hold Christianity in mostly kind regards. But at the same time, I like a lot of Romans, and without it, I wouldn't hold Christianity in any kind regards, and it's hard to discredit Corinthians, and not discredit Romans.

 

[RichardMooner]

There's a difference between saying "there is no evidence of God" and saying "I don't know if there is a God" - for example, I can say there is no evidence for flogistan or Luminiferous aether but that doesn't mean I am agnostic as to whether they exist or not. Any atheist who is forming their opinion based on the principles of scientific positivism would not say that anything can be proved with 100% certainty, only that the vast weight of evidence is against the idea that there is a God. As i said, the distinction is subtle but it is important too.

I assume you are referring to the Abrahamic God?

 

[RichardMooner]

In a nutshell, my problem with the Christianity/Islam/Judaism is that they are dogmatic and require blind faith in "bible god."With those religions, there is a set of required beliefs. With Buddhism, on the other hand, it's possible to be an atheist and a Buddhist. Depending on the flavor, Buddhism tends to be non-dogmatic and invites questions. There aren't really any required beliefs in supernatural entities.

Another reason for the more visceral disgust with Christianity is because of childhood experiences with Christianity being forced down one's throat and bad experiences with Bible thumpers and other people who have used that religion as a weapon, a very common occurrence in America. It's backlash.

You ought to look into John Lennox and see what he has to say about "Blind Faith".

 

[RichardMooner]

I agree with this completely. It was jammed down my throat all during my childhood, and now I can't stand Christians because they are hypocrites and they STILL try to force their ideas onto you. Atheist don't run around trying to make people listen. And you see all these little gangbangers with crucifixes on. Why? Because no matter what they do, they "are forgiven". Makes me sick.

But there's no better way to start a fight than talking religion or politics in public. I'm sorry I lost my temper. That's all I'll say.

I don't think the crucifixes on "Gangbangers" in movies are actually all that common, but your attack on catholic "gangsters" seems slightly ignorant to me, and unintentionally racist. But I agree, most people who are of Christian faith are very hypocritical, and one of the largest problems the Christian Church has, is it's integration with capitalism. The two do not work together in anyway, whatsoever.

 

[nuttynutskin]

There's a difference between saying "there is no evidence of God" and saying "I don't know if there is a God"

And again, if they're saying "I don't know if there is a God" they're agnostic, not atheist.

for example, I can say there is no evidence for flogistan or Luminiferous aether but that doesn't mean I am agnostic as to whether they exist or not. Any atheist who is forming their opinion based on the principles of scientific positivism would not say that anything can be proved with 100% certainty, only that the vast weight of evidence is against the idea that there is a God. As i said, the distinction is subtle but it is important too.

I don't know about all that. Every atheist I've ever heard or talked to vehemently denies the existence of god and an afterlife.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Believing there is no God is not the same as knowing there is no god.

But if the atheist doctrine is that there is no deity isn't that the same thing as supposedly knowing that there is no god? I mean why would someone follow that doctrine if they weren't sure in their minds that there wasn't? Doesn't make any sense.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Anyone remember this? That'll sure get people to take atheism seriously. It's the same people that sit down for the pledge of allegiance and are offended that money says "In God We Trust". Like some small print that you can barely see on your greenbacks is going to have some great impact on your day to day life. I also wonder why some atheists get so outraged over something they don't even believe in.

Atheist group sues over 10 Commandments monument at Oklahoma Capitol

Published January 16, 2014
Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY – Another lawsuit has been filed challenging the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma Capitol.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court by a New Jersey-based nonprofit group, Americans Atheists Inc., and two of its members, Aimee Breeze of Oklahoma City and William Poire of Wagoner County. The lawsuit is the latest challenge filed over the monument, which was installed on the Capitol grounds in 2012 after lawmakers approved it in 2009. The monument was donated by state Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow.

The lawsuit claims the monument is a state-sponsored endorsement of religion and therefore unconstitutional, The Oklahoman reported Wednesday. The lawsuit contends that Breeze is involved in advocacy events and regularly travels to the Capitol for legislative sessions.

"While at the state Capitol, (Breeze) is confronted by the Ten Commandments display, which she views as hurtful and exclusive and therefore avoids the area of the display while at the Capitol," the complaint says.

The state attorney general's office, which is defending the commission in a similar lawsuit filed in state court by the American Civil Liberties Union, had not received a copy of the lawsuit and declined comment.

The New York-based Satanic Temple has formally submitted plans to place a statue of Satan on the Capitol grounds, arguing that the state's decision to allow the Ten Commandments monument opened the door for their display.

A moratorium on the placement of any other monuments on Capitol grounds was issued in December until the ACLU lawsuit is resolved.

If monuments are permitted by the state, American Atheists Inc. said it also wishes to erect one at the Capitol with its guiding principles written upon it. Similar requests for monuments have been made by a Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.